Abstract

In its August 2018 report on violence against Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar, the Fact Finding Mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that “the role of social media [was] significant” in fueling the atrocities. Over the course of more than four hundred pages, the report documented how Facebook was used to spread misinformation, hate speech, and incitement to violence in the lead-up to and during the violence in Myanmar. Concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that genocide was perpetrated against the Rohingya, the report indicated that “the Mission has no doubt that the prevalence of hate speech,” both offline and online, “contributed to increased tension and a climate in which individuals and groups may become more receptive to incitement.” The experience in Myanmar demonstrates the increasing role that social media plays in the commission of atrocities, prompting suggestions that social media companies should operate according to a human rights framework.

Highlights

  • In its August 2018 report on violence against Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar, the Fact Finding Mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that “the role of social media [was] significant” in fueling the atrocities.[1]

  • Concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that genocide was perpetrated against the Rohingya, the report indicated that “the Mission has no doubt that the prevalence of hate speech,” both offline and online, “contributed to increased tension and a climate in which individuals and groups may become more receptive to incitement.”[3]. The experience in Myanmar demonstrates the increasing role that social media plays in the commission of atrocities, prompting suggestions that social media companies should operate according to a human rights framework

  • Attention is turning towards the social media companies themselves, and to what actions they must or should take to supress hate speech and incitement posted on their platforms

Read more

Summary

Emma Irving*

In its August 2018 report on violence against Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar, the Fact Finding Mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that “the role of social media [was] significant” in fueling the atrocities.[1]. Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” This obligation is directed at states—requiring them to prohibit such conduct under domestic law—rather than at social media companies, which, as domestic corporate actors, are not directly bound by human rights treaties. The choice of the term “responsibilities” throughout the UN Guiding Principles was deliberate: it denotes that human rights are a standard of expected conduct for companies, not a set of legal obligations.[12] Attempts to draft a treaty that would impose obligations directly on private companies remain at a standstill.[13] As such, in the search for a legal obligation on social media companies to supress hate speech and incitement on their platforms, international human rights law only takes us so far. Certain regional developments are relevant here: in 2014, the African Union adopted the Malabo Protocol,[14] which will create an international criminal law section within the

AJIL UNBOUND
The Way Forward?
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.